Lodged FT
 

A FT shot that gets lodged between the backboard and the ring....

If it is the first of multiple FT's, I believe it is considered a missed shot, and the remaining FT's are administered. However, what happens if it is lodged on last shot? I thought this was a violation, where team B would get to inbound the ball at the POI. But I cannot find it anywhere in the rule or case book.

The only reference I find is rule 6.4.3d: "A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows".

I cannot find the protocol anywhere. Any help?

You have answered you own question.

If a live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange during a throw-in or a freethrow, it is a violation.

-Josh

Any reference to that in the rulebook? I know 9.2.8 specifically talks about a thrown ball on a throw-in. But it doesn't say anything about a FT. Specifically the last FT....

It is not a violation. If it happens on a free throw or shot it is an alternating possession situation as you cited above.

6.4.3d says "unless a free throw or throw-in FOLLOWS." The OP situation is following a free-throw, not being followed by a free throw.

When the free-throw is at the disposal of the shooter, that ball is live (6.1.2b) just as it would be any other shot attempt. While it doesn't say in black-and-white, I would think this is an AP arrow situation.

Actually, it does say in black-and-white.

well, the OP has been requesting it and no one has been saying what reference it is in the book. I didn't see anything in the book saying anything about a lodged ball after a free-throw. Just the fact that a lodged ball after a shot goes to AP.

EDIT: I'll rephrase that to "not clear in black-and-white".

The rule has already been referenced. It's about knowing what has happened and what the rules say.

6-4-3...Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:

d. A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

You don't need anything else. What we have is a free throw (the ball is live) coming to rest between the ring and backboard. If this is the last free throw, then no throw-in is to follow.

THANKS! I think that makes it very clear.

Never noticed this before. Is this not a contradiction?

6-4-3d: An alternating possession throw-in shall result when a live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

9-2-8: The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring or come to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.

violation.....ball awarded to opponent.......etc. etc.

Seems this is a specific throw-in violation. It does seem to contradict the wording in 6-4-3 which would seem to indicate all live balls that come to rest/get stuck go to A/P.

I can see making this exception, however, as in this case the ball is not passed directly onto the court where it can touch or be touched by a player. Throw-in violation.

Good find. 6-4-3 should probably note the additional exception in 9-2-8.

Probably should be noted in 6-4-3d that there's an exception. I agree 6-4-3 makes it sounds like all live balls that get stuck/come to rest go AP.

The only other thing I would add is 9-2-8 says before it touches or is touched by another player (i.e. before the throw-in has ended). Maybe the Fed's thinking is this is good enough and no exception is needed.

Interesting, good find!

No, it's not a contradiction. 6-4-3 "unless a throw-in follows." 9-2-8 indicates that a throw-in follows.

bob,

I take that to mean if it gets lodged and a throw-in follows then you proceed to the throw-in... i.e. the second technical foul free throw gets lodged/comes to rest then you go to the throw-in at the division line, not the AP.

I almost always agree with Bob. This time I'll agree with tjones.

A throw-in would not have followed, had the ball not become lodged.

Who are you? What have you done with the real Bob?

This all reads very clear to me, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.

NFHS 6-4-3d: ... An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when: A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

This is pretty straight-forward, especially if you think about it in terms of how you will resume play. It is even clearer if we come at it back to front. When a live ball "wedgies" and we already know play will resume with a free throw (e.g., the first of two free throws wedgies, the shooter is fouled during a try that wedgies), we resume play with the free throw. When a live ball "wedgies" and we already know play will resume with a throw-in (e.g., the second free throw for a technical foul wedgies, a try by an airborne shooter who commits a player control foul wedgies), we resume play with the throw-in. Otherwise, we resume play with an AP throw-in.

NFHS 9-2-8: The thrown ball shall not become lodged between the backboard and ring or come to rest on the flange before it touches or is touched by another player.
PENALTY: (Section 2) The ball becomes dead when the violation ... occurs. Following a violation, the ball is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

This rule and penalty apply specifically to committing a throw-in violation. How do we resume play after a throw-in violation? With a throw-in. And we covered that above. However, there appear to be some who haven't yet learned not to argue with Bob. Their thinking seems to be that the wedgie itself is the throw-in violation and that it had not been determined prior to the wedgie that a throw-in would follow.

How do we resolve this rule, considered from this viewpoint, with the preceding one?

NOTE: Any rules statement is made on the assumption that no infraction is involved unless mentioned or implied. If such infraction occurs, the rule governing it is followed. For example, a game or extra period will not start with a jump ball if a foul occurs before the ball becomes live.

Simple, we don't resolve them. When a throw-in violation is involved, its rule is followed instead.

I can't believe it took 18 posts on this thread before someone used the term "wedgie". :rolleyes:

The confusion, if you want to call it that, comes from the fact that the above statement alone is not true. It seems that it would be simple enough to note the exception.


This is true, up to a point. If, after the ball lodges, A1 punches B1, it would be a technical foul and we would enforce that rule. That is obviously a separate infraction.

Something else happened.


But, in the case at hand, what happens in the rule statement itself in the one situation is the infraction. This is a big difference, in my opinion.

An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when: A live ball lodges between the backboard and ring or comes to rest on the flange, unless a free throw or throw-in follows.

Nothing else happened. A free throw or throw-in was not to follow. But an AP throw-in is still not the result.

You're over-thinking this. If the ball lodges during the normal course of play, you go by 6-4-3d. If a throw-in lodges, it is a throw-in violation and 9-2-8 tells us what to do. The more specific takes precedence over the more general.

True, but they are saying that the general case should make a reference to the specific case to alert people who would otherwise believe that the specific situation would be covered by the general rule.

I happen to agree with them.

It's not a question of overthinking. I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone reading the book for the first time.

Live ball............lodged...............hmmmm........ ........let's see.
Ah, here it is. This rule states flatly that we have an AP throw-in. Why would I assume anything else?

Because it does list the exception -- the "unless a throw-in follows" is the exception. That is, it means "if nothing else tells us who gets the ball, use the AP arrow."

I used to think the FED was wrong to develop things for the "least common denominator" of officials. Based on this thread, I might be changing my mind.

Actually the phrase is "unless a free throw or throw-in follows."

I think that, in plain English, in the context in which it is used, this phrase means "unless a free throw or throw-in was to follow had the ball not lodged."

I agree.